> > Yeuch.   I've always thought of prefixes as the least
> > important part of CQL, only there as a (valuable)
> > afterthought to reduce the dependance on Explain.

> I'll second that!  I'd be happy if it went away.
> Since the parser writers are the ones that want it, I guess I can't
> complain.  I'm hoping that all that baloney is invisible to me and the
> prefix will be replaced with the equivalent URI as part of the index name
> when I walk the parsed tree.

Having spent the 2 minutes required to fix my parser to Taylorian
semantics, all the parser writers are now in accord on the prefixes
precedence subject. :)

On the prefix name in tree, it seems that we should also make that able to
be expressed in XCQL directly.  Was there a reason that we didn't do this
from the start?

Rob

So XCQL v1.1 might look something like:
<searchClause>
  <prefixes> [prefix list]
  <index>
    <context>
    <name>
  </index>
  <relation>
    <context>
    <name>
    <modifiers> [modifer list]
  </relation>
  <term>
    (anything)
  </term>
</searchClause>


--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.                WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I